Socio-Economics

Return to DEIS Page 

4.9 Socio-economics

  • Construction of the project would temporarily increase the population in the affected counties and possibly some adjacent counties. (4-167).
  • Workforce numbers at any given facility would vary depending on the activity, but would generally range from allow of about 58 workers to a high of about 985 workers. (4-167) (How many of these jobs are going to go to Pennsylvanians? When Williams was installing the Rock Springs line in Lancaster Co- they had promised jobs in PA, but all of the workers- were from other states-even in clearing of brush and cutting down trees- so is there any guarantee that PA workers are going to benefit from this installation?)
  • Once construction is complete, the workforce numbers would decrease substantially. (4-167) (how many permanent jobs will be created for Pennsylvanians? (Williams had stated earlier in the process only 15 permanent jobs- how is that seen as a benefit for PA?))
  • Table on (4-167) shows the min and max of workers- the transient construction workforce would account for an increase of 1.0% of the existing 2013 county population. (What about the concern of these so called "mancamps" and the negative side effects of their presence in rural communities? http://marcellusdrilling.com/2014/03/man-camps- spring-up- in-marshall- county-wv-near- drill-sites/)
  • 75% of total workforce would be non-local (4-168) (how would any of it be local? Even Cindy Ivey, of Williams, stated that the workers would come from outside of the community, because they would need specialists)
  • the project would employ about 15 permanent full time personnel- 2 managers, 2 maintenance coordinators, 1 measurement specialist and 10 technicians- they would either be hired locally, or would be permanently relocated to the region. (4-168)- (so there is no economic gain for our communities- there is no promise of a lot of jobs for our communities- again, and still, we carry all the risk, all of the exploitation, and none of the benefits.)
  • Construction would result in a temporary but positive impact on the employment for counties within the project area. Transco anticipates hiring between 534 and 623 local PA construction workers with the requisite experience for the installation of the natural gas facilities. (4-168) (where do they expect to find these local workers with the nec. skills- we do not have people in the area installing pipeline, and as with the Rock Spring Line- see this promise as empty rhetoric, since they will pull "specialists" from other places, where pipelines are laid regularly- empty promises)
  • Local hiring could temporarily decrease the unemployment rate in the affected counties. If a larger than anticipated percentage of non local workers is required to meet peak workforce requirements, sufficient workers should be available in the labor pool int he surrounding counties and states.(4-168) (are they seriously going to say this? seriously? I would like FERC to do a study of how many pipeline installation workers (what percentage) in the past 3 pipelines they approved had workers from the local communities. This is an impact study-Williams should know where they can or cannot find workers with the skills they need- and from where they will come. If they intend on getting any workers from the area, how do they expect to locate them, and who are they? To make empty statements of "if" are just that- empty and should not be considered in this study.  What companies are going to be used, and how do we know they are presently unemployed)
  • In addition to direct hires, it is expected that the project would also provide a number of temp indirect jobs associated with purchases of food, clothing, lodging, gasoline, and entertainment by non-local workers. These indirect jobs would have a temporary stimulatory effect on the local economy. (4-169)
  • Construction of the project could temporarily decrease the availability of housing in the area. The project could have short-term positive impacts on the area rental industry through increased demand and higher rates of occupancy- however no significant impacts on the local housing markets are expected. (4-169) (With the Rock Springs line, workers filled local campgrounds- with tourism being one of the biggest economic industries for Lancaster Co- we question this declaration of "no significant impact").
  • While some of the construction activity would be conducted during the peack tourism season, sufficient temporary housing is still likely to be available. (4-169)
  • Based on the number of police and fire stations, school and hospitals there appears to be adequate public service infrastructure in the project area to accommodate the temp needs of the 1,873 non-local construction workers and their families. (4-170) (What percentage of the out of state workers bring their families with them for a temp job like this? Would FERC please require statistics from other installations (say Rock Springs, in Lancaster Co) what percentage of the workers bring their children and spouses/partners with them for the few months they would be in the area.)
  • Transco would require each of its contractors to have a health and safety plan, covering location- specific or work-specific requirements, to minimize the potential for the on-the- job accidents. (4-170)
  • Short term impacts on certain other public services are possible, which would include the need for localized police assistance or certified flaggers to control traffic flow during construction activities. Additional info re traffic and public safety assistance nec to support traffic controls is provided. (4-171) (Is there any monetary reimbursement to the local municipalities for the extra damage done to the roads with the increased truck traffic in rural areas? If so, who determines how and when that happens, and who keeps Transco/Williams accountable for the damage to local roads?)
  • Transco has established a community grant program that would benefit the local communities within the counties that would be traversed by the project. (4-171) (blood money)
  • the Majority of the pipeline would be in rural areas, and most of the roads affected by the project would be county or private roads. Construction could affect transportation and traffic across and within roadways and railroads due to increased vehicle traffic. (4-171).
  • Once Construction is complete, Transco would be responsible for repairing any damage to roads resulting from construction activities. (4-172) (Does this mean that there is an assessment, and pictures taken before and after? Who does this?  Who keeps Transco accountable for following up with this? Does this mean any damage? or just major damage, and who determines what that is?)
  • Transco proposes to utilize buses to transport workers from designated parking locations to the construction work areas. When buses are not practicable, workers would be encouraged to carpool to further reduce any potential effects on traffic. (4-172). (Can Transco give specific examples when buses have been used- in the past- and what percentage of their workers were transported to the work site via bus- and what percentage of the time these buses were used? From where do the buses come? How are workers encouraged to carpool? and please provide stats on how often workers actually carpool?)
  • Plan for construction across and within roadways and railroads includes: location and types of temp traffic control measure that would be used, including signage, channelization devices, barricades and flagmen, a communication plan for notifying the public about the location and duration of road closures, crossing of private driveways, emergency access management procedures, covering the use of tem travel lanes and use of steel plate bridges to cover the open trench in the event that emergency vehicles need to use roadway. (4-172)
  • We find Transco's plan would adequately reduce impacts on traffic flow: and based on the mitigation measures listed above, we expect the impacts from construction across and within roadways to be minor and temp. (4-172). (what would the impacts have to be in order for FERC to find them significant? That is, could FERC identify any kind of impacts on transportation for locals that would be not acceptable to FERC?)
  • The property owner would be responsible for any property taxes associated with the area encompassed by the permanent easement. (4-173)- (why? if the landowner is not able to do with this land as they please, and the industry has more power over what happens on that piece of land, why is the landowner given the semblance of authority over that land, when they basically pay taxes on land that the industry is making a heck of a lot of money on, and the landowner's options are limited. In addition- since the use of the land is on-going- why is the industry not required to continue to pay royalties on the line or to pay for taxes on the part of the landowner's land which they continue to control and use for their monetary benefit?)
  • Transco would compensate landowners for easements, use of workspace, and any construction-related damages. (4-173) (Who determines what damage is done during construction? That is, what does a landowner have to do in order to prove damage done during construction? Is FERC able to provide documentation for past Transco projects where landowners have had complaints of damage during construction. How did Transoc respond? Did the landowners have to sue in order to get any compensation? Who holds Transco accountable for this work?)
  • Transco would offer farmland owners a compensation plan for crop damages that includes provisions for the owner to identify crop yield deficiencies. (4-173) (Is there anyone who oversees the easements Transco signs with farmers to ensure they are fair? Will Transco reimburse beyond what is in their contract, if the farmer's land does not recover as quickly as Transco expects? What does a landowner have to do to get further compensation for lost crops? Is there anyone who verifies that the easements are fair and just- esp. since FERC knows that many of the easements are signed through intimidation and bullying tactics-as has been documented by landowner comments to FERC.)
  • Land values would be determined by appraisals that take into account objective characteristic of the property such as size, location and any improvements. The valuations generally do not consider subjective aspects such as the potential effect of a pipeline. (4-173) (how is it considered fair and just to not take into consideration potential effects of the pipeline on the property when compensating landowners for the PERMANENT row?)
  • That is not to say that the presence of a pipeline, and the restrictions associated with a pipeline easement could not influence potential buyer's decision to purchase a property. If a buyer is looking for a property for a specific use, which the presence of the pipeline renders infeasible, then the buyer may decide to purchase another property more suitable to their objectives. This would be similar to other buyer-specific preferences that not all homes have, such as close proximity to shopping, relative seclusion, or access to high quality school districts. (4-173) (this analysis dismisses the effect of pipelines through rural settings, where people want no industrial anything on their properties- esp, with the increased awareness of potential explosions- with the home completely destroyed, and the 26 year old man in western PA who had an explosion, which disintegrated his home, and burned 75% of his body with 3rd degree burns. There are people along the proposed line in Lancaster Co- who have lost numerous buyers, directly as a result of the POSSIBILITY of a pipeline close to the home-)
  • Study in Luzern Co-determined there was no indication that the pipeline easement had any effect on the sales prices of homes- (4-174) (wording is so specific here- How much longer were houses with easements on the market? If the prices showed no significant difference- was there any difference in the sales themselves?)
  • a few of the study results were from 2008, and 2011- (4-174)- (who did these studies? who paid for the studies to be done? the gas industry has changed much in the pas 8 years- I wonder what differences would be found today?)
  • Several comments were filed regarding the effect the project would have on the ability of property owners to obtain or maintain a mortgage. We are not aware of landowners having problems obtaining mortgages for properties crossed by pipelines. (4-174)- (the deis mentions the lancaster based fulton bank saying that an easement would not keep them from offering a mortgage, and there were also numerous letters sent in that with quotes from banks saying they would NOT provide a mortgage in this case- why does the study only quote the one saying there would be no change, but declines to present evidence that was provided to the opposite).
  • Based on info obtained by Transco to date, insurance underwriters have not considered the presence of a transmission pipeline when determining the cost and coverage of property insurance. Transco is fully insured and maintains insurance coverage that extends to landowners from the start of the survey process through the lifetime of the pipeline. Transco would pay for damage caused by construction and operation of its facilities. (4-174) (This statement is absolute BS. Numerous comments have been submitted from insurance companies stating that they would not be able to continue with home owners insurance because the space is now being used commercially- and the landowner would have to find new insurers- and have an increase in their prices. The fact that Transco has insurance coverage does not make the landowner's life easier. That is- Transco does not come out and assess the land/home and cover insurance for each landowner. Instead, if there is an accident, the landowner has the damage to deal with AND would have to sue Transco to have their insurance cover all of the damage. FERC uses words here to make it sound as if Transco would go out of their way to above and beyond for the landowner, and history has shown with the industry, that this is just NOT the case.  In Dimmick PA, the landowners lost their water supplies- and spent years in legal battles, spending thousands of dollars on legal fees in order to try to get compensated for the damage to their properties and their lives- and it was never settled adequately. This assumption FERC makes is easy for them to make with other people's lives. Shame on the "regulatory" agency to, once again, screw the american landowner for the sake of the industry- shame) • A study is quoted as finding "pipeline infrastructure does not affect homeowner insurance rates. (4-175) (amazing that FERC looks to a study done 4 years ago, rather than seeing and using documents from landowners' insurance companies that state the opposite. This refusal of FERC to take seriously the burden this line would be on landowners- via increased insurance, is evidence of the farce this regulatory agency is.)
  • Construction of the Project would have a beneficial impact on local sales tax revenue- because of the cost of materials, payroll- (4-175) (This also is a lie- the pipeline is being bought from turkey and india- it isn't even produced by America-and from the tree cutters to the hole diggers, the workers come from outside of the local community. Cindy Ivey stated that the only purchase locally MIGHT be straw to spread around to control erosion. This hopeful statement is a LIE- being boldly and arrogantly used to have the appearance of being of some benefit for the locals-shameful)
  • construction and operation of the project would have a positive effect on tax generation in PA- and are expected to generate about $16.9 milllion. (4-175) (I spoke with the professor at Penn State who came up with the program used to calculate this number- and challenged his program being used (with a lot of ifs in it_) to calculate this number- with inflated numbers based on false info provided by Transco- He agreed that a large portion of the materials and workers would have to come from local sources- which Cindy Ivey has declared would not happen. Therefore this number is a bogus number, and is a fraudulent claim on the part of FERC or Transco.)